AI Integrity: A New Paradigm for Verifiable AI Governance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11065v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 06:45:30 GMT
• Title: AI Integrity: A New Paradigm for Verifiable AI Governance
• Abstract summary: AI systems increasingly shape high-stakes decisions in healthcare, law, defense, and education.<n>Existing governance paradigms -- AI Ethics, AI Safety, and AI Alignment -- share a common limitation: they evaluate outcomes rather than verifying the reasoning process itself.<n>This paper introduces AI Integrity, a concept defined as a state in which the Authority Stack of an AI system is protected from corruption, contamination, manipulation, and bias.
• Score: 3.7184769644515896
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI systems increasingly shape high-stakes decisions in healthcare, law, defense, and education, yet existing governance paradigms -- AI Ethics, AI Safety, and AI Alignment -- share a common limitation: they evaluate outcomes rather than verifying the reasoning process itself. This paper introduces AI Integrity, a concept defined as a state in which the Authority Stack of an AI system -- its layered hierarchy of values, epistemological standards, source preferences, and data selection criteria -- is protected from corruption, contamination, manipulation, and bias, and maintained in a verifiable manner. We distinguish AI Integrity from the three existing paradigms, define the Authority Stack as a 4-layer cascade model (Normative, Epistemic, Source, and Data Authority) grounded in established academic frameworks -- Schwartz Basic Human Values for normative authority, Walton argumentation schemes with GRADE/CEBM hierarchies for epistemic authority, and Source Credibility Theory for source authority -- characterize the distinction between legitimate cascading and Authority Pollution, and identify Integrity Hallucination as the central measurable threat to value consistency. We further specify the PRISM (Profile-based Reasoning Integrity Stack Measurement) framework as the operational methodology, defining six core metrics and a phased research roadmap. Unlike normative frameworks that prescribe which values are correct, AI Integrity is a procedural concept: it requires that the path from evidence to conclusion be transparent and auditable, regardless of which values a system holds.

Related papers

• Artificial Intelligence as Monism: Ontological, Organisational, and Methodological Implications [31.495834538807525]
  The paper contends that AI is not merely a collection of components but a single, indivisible essence reflecting the singularity it replicates.<n>Epistemologically, it positions AI as the central interpretive force across technological, organisational, and societal domains.<n>Ultimately, this paper calls for a paradigm shift in how AI is conceptualised, governed, and integrated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T16:43:23Z)
• Is Decentralized AI Governable? From Regulative Policy to Constitutive Protocol [1.5755923640031846]
  We analyze DeAI as a six-layer decentralizing stack.<n>We argue for a shift in the locus of governance from policy to protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T12:09:56Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Keeping an Eye on AI: A Framework for Effective Human Oversight of AI Systems [46.60248293123689]
  This paper advances a practical framework for effective human oversight of AI systems.<n>It draws on insights from computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T22:35:41Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Safe and Certifiable AI Systems: Concepts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned [45.44933002008943]
  This white paper presents the T"UV AUSTRIA Trusted AI framework.<n>It is an end-to-end audit catalog and methodology for assessing and certifying machine learning systems.<n>Building on three pillars - Secure Software Development, Functional Requirements, and Ethics & Data Privacy - it translates the high-level obligations of the EU AI Act into specific, testable criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:52:08Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Rational Superautotrophic Diplomacy (SupraAD); A Conceptual Framework for Alignment Based on Interdisciplinary Findings on the Fundamentals of Cognition [0.0]
  Rational Superautotrophic Diplomacy (SupraAD) is a theoretical, interdisciplinary conceptual framework for alignment.<n>It draws on cognitive systems analysis and instrumental rationality modeling.<n>SupraAD reframes alignment as a challenge that predates AI, afflicting all sufficiently complex, coadapting intelligences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T17:28:25Z)
• Measuring Value Alignment [12.696227679697493]
  This paper introduces a novel formalism to quantify the alignment between AI systems and human values. By utilizing this formalism, AI developers and ethicists can better design and evaluate AI systems to ensure they operate in harmony with human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-23T12:30:06Z)
• Connecting the Dots in Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI Principles, Ethics, and Key Requirements to Responsible AI Systems and Regulation [22.921683578188645]
  We argue that attaining truly trustworthy AI concerns the trustworthiness of all processes and actors that are part of the system's life cycle. A more holistic vision contemplates four essential axes: the global principles for ethical use and development of AI-based systems, a philosophical take on AI ethics, and a risk-based approach to AI regulation. Our multidisciplinary vision of trustworthy AI culminates in a debate on the diverging views published lately about the future of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T09:49:53Z)
• Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework [0.9622882291833615]
  This paper proposes an alternative contextual, coherent, and commensurable (3C) framework for regulating artificial intelligence (AI) To ensure contextuality, the framework bifurcates the AI life cycle into two phases: learning and deployment for specific tasks, instead of defining foundation or general-purpose models. To ensure commensurability, the framework promotes the adoption of international standards for measuring and mitigating risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-20T15:23:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.